LAND COMMISSIONER MADRAS Vs. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by the Land Commissioner, Madras and another challenging the judgment and order dated 13-2-1997 of a Division Bench of Madras High Court by which the writ appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 15-11-1989 of a learned single Judge passed in favour of the respondent was affirmed.

(2.) Proceedings under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were initiated against R. Vivekananda Reddiar, who is the husband of the respondent, Rajeswari. The Authorised Officer declared 3.06 standard acres of land as surplus and a final statement was published in the Gazette on 13-8-1980. R. Vivekananda Reddiar preferred a revision petition under S. 82 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Land Commissioner vide order dated 7-5-1981 on the finding that the family consisted of six members and the respondent, Rajeswari, was holding more than 5 standard acres of land and, therefore, she was not to be considered as a member of the family in view of S. 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act. The respondent Rajeswari preferred a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before Madras High Court challenging the judgment and order of the Land Commissioner by which the final statement published in the Gazette was affirmed. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge on 15-11-1989 and the order declaring 3.06 standard acres of land as surplus was quashed. The writ appeal preferred by the Land Commissioner and the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) against the said judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench on 13-2-1997.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the family of R. Vivekananda Reddiar consisted of six members including his wife Rajeswari who in her own right held 25.15 ordinary acres equivalent to 13.06 standard acres of land as her stridhana land while R. Vivekananda Reddiar held 15.19 ordinary acres equivalent to 8.23 standard acres of land. The family consisted of husband, wife and four children and in normal course the ceiling limit would be 20 standard acres but as Rajeswari had in her own right stridhana land in excess of 5 standard acres, therefore, by virtue of S. 5(4)(b)(i) of the Act, she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family and, therefore, she had to be excluded from consideration. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of Section 5(4)(a) of the Act only a maximum extent of 10 standard acres can be included in the holding of the family as stridhana land and where the stridhana land to the extent of 10 standard acres held by a female member has been included in the family holding, the said female member is not entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent which has been allowed to be included under S.5(4)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that proceedings had been initiated against R. Vivekananda Reddiar and not against the respondent-Rajeswari and as such the land held by her as her stridhana land could not have been declared as surplus. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of S. 5(4)(a) of the Act, additional benefit is given to the family member holding stridhana land and the only effect of S. 5(4)(b)(i) is that a female member holding stridhana land may not claim double benefit both under Ss. 5(1)(b) and 5(4)(a) of the Act and not that she shall not be deemed to be a member of the family.